Strawman, because we aren't talking about closing a website, but just blocking access from one country.
Regarding your example: Yes, I would comply and block access from Saudi Arabia to my website.
Strawman, because we aren't talking about closing a website, but just blocking access from one country.
Regarding your example: Yes, I would comply and block access from Saudi Arabia to my website.
In the beginning (like it was in this case with gutenberg.org), it isn't a court order, but just an email, asking me if I could respect their local laws.
Books becoming public domain example: In Germany it's 75 years after the author's death, in the US some amount of years after the publication. Who am I to judge which approach is "right"?
Btw: We're suffering quite a lot here in Germany because of software patents in the US.
> Which is all fine and dandy, but I still don't understand why an American company with no legal presence in Germany should obey rulings of the German court.
Don't you consider a website in German, accessible from Germany, which looks totally legal for most Germans as some kind of legal presence in Germany?
No.
The site is created in some set of locations, and is hosted on servers in some set of locations. If none of those locations is in Germany, Germany has no personal jurisdiction.
(At least under US law, which is what counts when it comes to enforcing judgement against someone in the US.)
The site is obly blocked in Germany.
Remember, this means that the FBI has no right to even investigate the persons involved in it. No jurisdiction means no investigation.
If a country doesn't like my site, they're free to block it themselves instead of compelling me to.
Just because they'd get slaughtered in a revolt and don't have the ability to overthrow the king, doesn't mean that they have consented to the actions of the unelected people ruling over them.
"The defendants are ordered, on penalty of an administrative fine of up to EUR 250,000.00 or, alternatively, imprisonment of up to 6 months, for each case of non- compliance, said imprisonment to be imposed on the second defendant, to cease and desist from making the following works publicly available or letting them be made publicly available, namely:..."